Hayden overated?

[Seamer]

Originally Posted by Notts Exile

That's a fair point Seamer. I was trying to suggest that having scored a few against Northants some people may have thought the problems were over too. Thursday cannot come quickly enough for many of us, then we can stop talkiong and listen/watch!

I know excactly what you mean Notts. No tour game can even come close to simulating what you get when facing this English bowling attack. Hayden efforts have shown that is is not so much that they are out of form, but rather the English bowlers are on fire. Hopefully for the Aussies, they will go off the boil at the Oval.

[Ninjaman]

Originally Posted by Rachael

The fact that he once hit 935 on the ratings list... placing him in amongst (indeed near the top of) the greatest ever... and has often been hailed alongside Ponting and Gilchrist as one of the giants of the recent Aussie side... and was (until recently) almost completely eclipsing Langer in all talk of "the best of our era" all rather grates.

Nice to hear that if he does lose his place it's likely to be to Katich... who's compeltely the reverse: the subject of snide remarks and sniping no matter how heroically he battles to save his team!

Well if you put faith in the ratings and believe it can tell you who are the greatest ever (it can't) then you have to deal with the fact that he actually was rated that highly.

Or you could realise that where he places on a pretty insignificant rating list and "best of our era" lists are just a bit of fun and mean nothing.

I would also like to correct what Zainub said, "Hayden is the only person in test cricket history to have scored more than 1000 runs in a calender year for FOUR years in a row (2001, 2002, and 2003 and 2004).

If he is replaced by Katich then that's really a nothing move. The less said, the better

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Seamer

Cricket is all about momentum. Playing submissive innings and allowing the bowlers to get into a rythym and get on top is not the way to win test matches.

No... but it's not the opening batsman's job to win Test matches either: their job is principally to ensure that there are wickets in hand after 120 overs so that matchwinning partnerships can be built against tired bowlers and a ball that's lost it's shine (that's the second new ball, not the first one!).

If Katich had opened in this series and helped Langer, Ponting and the rest ensure that guys like Clarke and Gilchrist were coming in after Flintoff had flogged himself into the ground, the ball was no longer bouncing for Harmison and Vaughan had decided to set the field right back for Jones / Hoggard... maybe we'd have seen Clarke set the world alight and the Gilchrist of old step forth!

Originally Posted by Seamer

At the end of the day, cricket is about entertainment and results and no-one will be willing to waste good money and a whole day watching someone like Kattitch play.

Real Madrid believe in soccer as entertainment.. but they suck because they dispensed with their utilitarian holding midfielder and have steadfastly refused to pay big bucks for the players at the back. You can't entertain in soccor matches if the other side has got the ball.. and you cannot entertain in cricket matches if the other side keep sending your batsmen packing 'cos they can't graft!

[Ninjaman]

Originally Posted by Rachael

Real Madrid believe in soccer as entertainment.. but they suck because they dispensed with their utilitarian holding midfielder and have steadfastly refused to pay big bucks for the players at the back. You can't entertain in soccor matches if the other side has got the ball.. and you cannot entertain in cricket matches if the other side keep sending your batsmen packing 'cos they can't graft!

You were going so right on the Real Madrid analogy until you spolit it by saying they "have steadfastly refused to pay big bucks for the players at the back".

Walter Samuel £16.7 million
Jonathon Woodgate £14 million
Sergio Ramos £18 million

in the last 13 months or so alone.

....but back to cricket.

[Rob.]

Hayden is not an overated batsman, he has achieved great things in the game and that cannot be taken away from him.

But he certainly seems to have a bit of a problem in English conditions. Don't forget that he stuggled in England in 2001 as well, and that after his wonderful run in India. He doesn't look certain against the swinging ball whatsoever, he has played it pretty badly in truth. I dismiss talk that he is out of form, just look at how well he has been playing in the tour matches against the counties, you can't yo-yo in and out of form inbetween matches, he has just found facing the swing, pace and better accuracy of Hoggard, S Jones and Flintoff a bit too much for him, wheras in the county matches he has been able to belt trundlers to his hearts content.

I certainly would not be surprised if he went away from this tour, and made plenty of runs in Australia's next summer, on flatter wickets.

[Irish Left Armer]

That's possible RB but if he doesn't make runs at The Oval his test career is most likely finished.

[anthman]

Was anyone by any chance at the tour match the other day when Hayden scored 150 in a session? How was the field set? Was it a regulation field or did he score 150 despite then trying to copy Vaughan's field placing to Hayden?

[Paoli]

ILA, you are on the money; if he makes no runs here he will be dropped and Australian selectors are notoriously renowned for not re-selecting batsman after they've been dropped...Lehmann, Love, Slater...it took Martyn eight years to get back! The only reason why changes won't be made now is because of the experience factor.

[acker]

I personally thought Hayden's 5th test hundred was slow and more personally inspired rather than team inspired. I think an up-tempo 60 or 70 would have been better for the Aussies than a 400 minute small ton. We had to win this match, did Hayden forget or just decide his personal carreer was more important.

In Aussie rules we call them kick chasers in Mathew's case I might just call him a "stat" chaser.

Not impressed

[Beny]

Hayden played every ball on it's merits, taking into account his lack of confidence and poor form. Had he tried to play his innings any differently then Australia would'nt just have drawn the match, we might possibly have lost it. He played a magnificent innings to put himself back into form and to call it a selfish innings just smacks of sour grapes... If anybody in the Aussie dressing room agreed with you Acker, then we would have risked playing in the bad light on day three rather than playing safe. That as it was, we came within two catches of being in a postion to win the game so your theory that his pace cost us the match is defunct... If Australia had taken their chances then time might not have been an issue.